JUDGMENT D. J. Jagannadha Raju, J. - This is an appeal by the petitioner against the judgment dated October 20, 1989 in O.P. No. 3047 of 1989-K (Giri Oil Mills v. State of Kerala). The petitioner relying upon S.R.O. No. 968/80, the notification issued under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 filed the original petition questioning exhibit P2 dated March 21, 1989 issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Palghat, and it prayed for quashing exhibit P3 notice dated March 18, 1989 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.), Sales Tax Special Circle, Palghat. The facts leading to the controversy are as follows. The Giri Oil Mills, the petitioner, was established newly on December 14, 1985, and it was granted tax concession for the five year period from December 14, 1985 to December 14, 1990 as per the provisions of S.R.O. No. 968/80 which was issued in G.O. Ms. No. 74/80/TD dated September 29, 1980. It is the claim of the petitioner that it invested nearly Rs. 6,77,000 initially and as per exhibit P1 he was granted tax concession or exemption for an amount of Rs. 5,10,163, which represents 90 per cent of the total fixed capital investment. The petitioner claims that it additionally invested Rs. 7,81,344 between August, 1988 and December, 1988 and hence it again approached the General Manager, District Industries Centre for a certificate. Then the petitioner was granted exhibit P2 granting sales tax exemption for Rs. 6,82,492 for the period commencing from December 13, 1988 to December 14, 1990. The petitioner claims that this concession of Rs. 6,82,492 granted under exhibit P2 should also be spread over the entire period from December, 1985 to December, 1990. It further claims that it submitted returns for the years, 1987-88, 1988-89, and the petitioner was surprised to receive exhibit P3 notice without granting it the exemption, and without giving credit for the exemption to which it is entitled. It is also stated that the second respondent threatened to impose a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 for its failure to pay tax. The petitioner contends that it has not violated section 45A(1)(d) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and there is no justification for levying the penalty. It also claims that it is not liable to pay the tax because of the exemption granted to it. 10 lakhs for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 for its failure to pay tax. The petitioner contends that it has not violated section 45A(1)(d) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and there is no justification for levying the penalty. It also claims that it is not liable to pay the tax because of the exemption granted to it. In the original petition the prayers are as follows : "(1) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to exemption of sales tax as provided in G.O. Ms. No. 74 of 1980 spread over during the entire period commencing from December 14, 1985 to December 14, 1990; (2) to quash exhibit P2 and exhibit P3 by issuing a writ of certiorari; and (3) for a declaration that exhibit P3 penalty notice is illegal and without jurisdiction." After hearing the arguments of both sides, Radhakrishna Menon, J. came to the conclusion that the sales tax concession can, under no circumstances, exceed 90 per cent of the cumulative gross capital investment and that in this case the concession given under exhibit P1 was already utilised and enjoyed by the petitioner in the first two years, that is, 1986-87 and 1985-86. The additional investment was made in the fourth year and hence the additional tax concession as indicated in exhibit P2 can be claimed only in the year of investment and not in any other year or previous years. The learned single Judge also held that this concession can be enjoyed only when the assessment is made. Under the Sales Tax Act each year is a unit of assessment, and hence exemption can be granted only in respect of sales pertaining to that particular year of assessment. The assessment year in which the additional investment is made is the year in which the exemption in regard to that additional investment can be claimed. If the assessee does not exhaust the full concession in that assessment year, he would be entitled to claim it in the succeeding year of eligibility. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that exhibit P2 cannot be quashed, and the proceedings in exhibit P3 require to be investigated. If the assessee does not exhaust the full concession in that assessment year, he would be entitled to claim it in the succeeding year of eligibility. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that exhibit P2 cannot be quashed, and the proceedings in exhibit P3 require to be investigated. The investigation shall be on the lines indicated in the judgment, and the Judge also further directed that the authority concerned shall keep in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] 45 STC 197; AIR 1980 SC 346, while considering the question as to whether penalty is leviable in the circumstances of the case. The original petition was accordingly disposed of. Exhibits P2 and P3 were not quashed by the learned single Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. In this appeal, Shri N. N. Venkitachalam contends that under G.O. Ms. No. 74/80/TD dated September 29, 1980 and the language of S.R.O. No. 968/80, there is no scope or power for prescribing in which years the exemption is to be enjoyed. The exemption is one which can be spread over throughout the five years. The notification does not lay down that the tax concession or exemption can be granted only after the additional investment is made. He contends that if the investment is made in the five year period, the total exemption should be spread over the five years. He contends that the notification does not contemplate exemption being enjoyed only subsequent to the investment. It is not open to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, to specify the period during which the tax concession or exemption should be granted. He contends that this being a taxation statute, a liberal interpretation should be given to the notification in favour of the assessee. He further contends that the notification only contemplates a period of five years from the date of commencement of sale of such goods by the unit and there is absolutely no reference to either the assessment year, calender year or financial year. He further contends that the notification only contemplates a period of five years from the date of commencement of sale of such goods by the unit and there is absolutely no reference to either the assessment year, calender year or financial year. Shri Venkitachalam also contends that the petitioner is entitled to tax exemption for 90 per cent of the capital investment for each year and a liberal interpretation of the notification clearly indicates that for each year the petitioner could avail the tax concession to the limit prescribed in the certificate issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre. On behalf of the revenue, Shri N. N. Divakaran Pillai, Government Pleader, contends that what is claimed by the petitioner is a "tax exemption" given under the notification and hence the notification has to be construed strictly. A liberal interpretation cannot be given. The contentions of the petitioner's counsel are contrary to the wording and limitations contained in the notification. If Shri Venkitachalam's interpretation of the notification is to be accepted, the language of the second proviso in the notification will become otiose and meaningless. He also contends that under the scheme of the notification investment should precede the availment of the tax exemption. Unless he makes the investment, he cannot claim the tax exemption. In the present case, the tax exemption granted under exhibit P1 has been utilised and enjoyed by the petitioner in the first two years. The additional investment was made only from August, 1988 to December, 1988. Hence he can avail the tax exemption indicated in exhibit P1 only after December, 1988. For the years 1988-89 and 1987-88, he is bound to pay the sales tax. Shri Pillai further contends that "the year" referred to in the notification has necessarily to be construed as the financial year because section 2(xxx) defines the "year" as the financial year. The words used in the notification have the same meaning and connotation as the words used in the main Act, under which the notification is issued. Shri Pillai further contends that "the year" referred to in the notification has necessarily to be construed as the financial year because section 2(xxx) defines the "year" as the financial year. The words used in the notification have the same meaning and connotation as the words used in the main Act, under which the notification is issued. The points that arise for consideration in this writ appeal are : "(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail tax exemption to an extent of 90 per cent of the total capital investment in each of the five years; (2) whether the petitioner is justified in claiming that this notification should be given a liberal interpretation and construction as it pertains to a fiscal statute; and (3) whether exhibits P2 and P3 are liable to be quashed as claimed by the petitioner." Point No. 2 : Shri Venkitachalam's contention that a liberal interpretation should be given to S.R.O. No. 968/80 issued in G.O. Ms. No. 74/80/TD dated September 29, 1980 is not at all correct. It should be remembered that a liberal interpretation should be given for the charging provisions of the taxation statute, but with regard to exemptions from taxation, strict interpretation has to be given. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Carmel Book Stall [1989] 74 STC 89 (Ker); 1989 (1) KLT 701 is a Division Bench decision of this Court and it clearly lays down the law as follows : "5. It is well-known that exemption in a statute has to be strictly construed. When exemption is claimed they should not be extended beyond the express requirement of the language of the provision. .... Since all exemptions from taxation increase the burden on other members of the community they should be deprecated except to the extent permissible by the express language of the statute itself. In that view of the matter also, the exemption provision should get a strict interpretation. ..... If the assessee is liable to sales tax provided if he is not covered by the exemption, it is for him to show that he is exempted. In that view of the matter also, the exemption provision should get a strict interpretation. ..... If the assessee is liable to sales tax provided if he is not covered by the exemption, it is for him to show that he is exempted. ...." If we are to interpret the notification, S.R.O. No. 968/80 in the light of the above Division Bench decision it is quite clear that no liberal interpretation can be given for this notification, which gives an exemption in respect of tax payable for newly established industrial unit under the small-scale industries. We hold this point against the appellant. Point Nos. 1 and 3 : Before dealing with the claims of the petitioner, it would be proper to extract the notification : "Kerala Gazette No. 42 dated October 21, 1980 Part I Section iv. Government of Kerala Taxes (B) Department Notification I G.O. Ms. No. 74/80/TD dated, Trivandrum, 29th September, 1980. S.R.O. No. 968/80. - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (15 of 1963), the Government of Kerala, having considered it necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby make an exemption in respect of the tax payable under the said Act on the turnover of the sale of goods produced and sold by the new industrial units under the small-scale industries for a period of five years from the date of commencement of sale of such goods by the said units subject to the conditions that the tax if any collected by such units by way of tax on their sales shall be paid over to Government and that sales tax, if any, already paid by such units to Government shall not be refunded : Provided that such units shall produce proceedings of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, declaring the eligibility of the units for claiming exemption from sales tax : Provided further that the cumulative sales tax concession granted to a unit at any point of time within this period shall not exceed 90 per cent of the cumulative gross fixed capital investment of the unit. Explanation. - For the purpose of this notification 'new industrial units under the small-scale industries' shall mean undertakings set up on or after 1st April, 1979, and registered with the Department of Industries and Commerce as a small-scale industrial unit. Explanation. - For the purpose of this notification 'new industrial units under the small-scale industries' shall mean undertakings set up on or after 1st April, 1979, and registered with the Department of Industries and Commerce as a small-scale industrial unit. This notification shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1st April, 1979. Explanatory Note. - (This is not a part of the notification but is intended to indicate the general purport). In G.O. (P) No. 386/79/ID dated November 8, 1979 the Government, inter alia, ordered that new industrial units under small-scale industries set up after April 1, 1979 will be exempted from the payment of sales tax for a period of 5 years from the date of production. It is considered necessary to give effect to the exemption mentioned above by the issue of statutory notification under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The notification is intended to achieve the above purpose." A reading of the notification clearly indicates that the Government of Kerala considered it necessary in the public interest to give an exemption in respect of tax payable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act on the turnover of the sale of goods produced and sold by the new industrial units under the small-scale industries for a period of five years from the date of commencement of sale of such goods by the unit. This concession is given subject to several conditions. The two provisos in the notification are very significant. Under the first proviso such units shall produce proceedings of the General Manager, District Industries Centre declaring the eligibility of the unit for claiming exemption from sales tax. The second proviso is much more important. It clearly indicates that the cumulative sales tax concession granted to a unit at any point of time within this period shall not exceed 90 per cent of the cumulative gross fixed capital investment of the unit. The notification is applicable for units established after April 1, 1979, because the notification is deemed to come into force with effect from April 1, 1979. If Shri Venkitachalam's contention is to be accepted, and if the court is to hold that in each year the unit is entitled to sales tax exemption to an extent of 90 per cent of the cumulative fixed capital investment, then the second proviso is rendered nugatory. If Shri Venkitachalam's contention is to be accepted, and if the court is to hold that in each year the unit is entitled to sales tax exemption to an extent of 90 per cent of the cumulative fixed capital investment, then the second proviso is rendered nugatory. The interpretation given by Shri Venkitachalam is contrary to the provisions of the notification. His contention that the exemption is available from December 14, 1985 to December 14, 1990 does not also appear to be correct, because the notification refers to a period of five years from the date of commencement of sale of such goods by the unit. Though the notification uses the words "five years" and as "commencing from the date of sale of such goods", we have to give a harmonious interpretation to the notification. Shri Venkitachalam contends that the words used "a period of five years from the date of commencement of the sale" should be construed as "any of the five years" for which the exemption is available. It should be remembered that the word "year" has been defined in section 2(xxx) as meaning the financial year. In view of the peculiar manner in which "year" under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is defined, we have to read the notification also so as to mean that the "year" referred to in the notification refers to the financial year, that is, 1st April to 31st March. There is judicial authority for this view. In a batch of writ appeals disposed of on 27th February, 1973 (T. C. Vadivel v. Sales Tax Officer [1973] 31 STC 602 (Ker)) by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of His Lordship, T. C. Raghavan, C.J., and His Lordship, K. Bhaskaran, J. it was clearly laid down as follows : "It is only common sense that, if a notification is issued under a particular Act, expressions which are found in the notification have only the meaning they have in the Act under which the notification is issued, unless, of course, the context requires otherwise. This is the law too." Their Lordships then referred to section 19 of the Kerala Interpretation and General Clauses Act of 1125 and observed that : "Where, by an Act, a power to issue any notification, order, scheme, rule, form or by-law is conferred, then expressions used in the notification, order, scheme, rule, form or by-law shall, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, have the same respective meanings as in the Act conferring the power." After referring to these two particular aspects, their Lordships rejected the contention advanced that the exemption provided under notification issued in S.R.O. No. 211/67 under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act would entitle the petitioner to claim exemption under Central Sales Tax Act and other Sales Tax Acts. This decision has been reported in [1973] 31 STC 602; 1973 KLT S.N. page 15 (T. C. Vadivel v. Sales Tax Officer). However, this Court had the advantage of seeing the original judgment pronounced by the Division Bench. It is now admitted by the petitioner that for the exemption given in exhibit P1 he has fully utilised it in the first two years. If he had not exhausted the exemption limit in the first two years, it would be open to the petitioner to claim the balance of the unexhausted portion of the exemption in the third year. It is also admitted by the appellant - petitioner that the subsequent investment or additional investment was made only during August, 1988 to December, 1988. The crucial question is in such a case, when can the petitioner avail the exemption with regard to the additional investment made by it. A careful reading of the notification clearly indicates that under this notification, the investment should precede the availment of the exemption or the concession in tax. In the second proviso it is clearly mentioned that the cumulative sales tax concession granted to a unit at any point of time within this period shall not exceed 90 per cent of the cumulative gross fixed capital investment of the unit. For the original investment, the petitioner was granted concession as per exhibit P1, and he utilised it fully in the first two years. During the third year and fourth year he has not invested any money towards capital. In such circumstances, he is not entitled to any tax concession at that point of time. For the original investment, the petitioner was granted concession as per exhibit P1, and he utilised it fully in the first two years. During the third year and fourth year he has not invested any money towards capital. In such circumstances, he is not entitled to any tax concession at that point of time. His right to the additional tax concession has arisen only after he invested the money from August, 1988 to December, 1988. In view of the language of the notification the General Manager, District Industries Centre is perfectly justified in mentioning in exhibit P2 that the petitioner would be entitled to avail the additional exemption of sales tax during the period from December 31, 1988 to December 14, 1990. The amount given as exemption is Rs. 6,82,492, being the 90 per cent of the additional investment. His right to avail concession or exemption arose only after December, 1988. In such circumstances, his failure to pay tax for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 is a gross violation of the Act. The authorities are perfectly justified in issuing exhibit P3 notice. Shri Venkitachalam at one point contended that the petitioner - appellant would be entitled to an exemption of 90 per cent of the investment for every one of the five years. If this argument is to be accepted, we find that it would lead to absurd results. For example, if a man invests Rs. 10,00,000 and if he is entitled to the exemption of sales tax to an extent of Rs. 9 lakhs, if the interpretation given by Shri Venkitachalam is to be accepted, the total exemption to which he would be entitled to avail would come to Rs. 45 lakhs. This interpretation seems to be one which is possible only when the second proviso in the notification is not there. The second proviso which fixes the limits for the sales tax concession clearly postulates that the cumulative sales tax concession shall not exceed 90 per cent of the cumulative gross fixed capital investment. This argument of Shri Venkitachalam cannot be countenanced as it offends against the very wording of the notification which gives the concession. The second proviso which fixes the limits for the sales tax concession clearly postulates that the cumulative sales tax concession shall not exceed 90 per cent of the cumulative gross fixed capital investment. This argument of Shri Venkitachalam cannot be countenanced as it offends against the very wording of the notification which gives the concession. The learned single Judge exhaustively dealt with the scope of the notification and the provisos in his judgment and pointed out the significance of the words "at any point of time" and the words "cumulative sales tax concession", and then explained that the petitioner enjoyed the concession fully in a span of two years and the additional investment was made in the fourth year and hence the additional concession can be claimed only after the investment is made. He is not entitled to claim additional concession for the previous year. The learned single Judge is perfectly justified in not quashing exhibit P2 and the learned Judge is perfectly correct in coming to the conclusion that the additional concession cannot be spread over the entire period of five years. As regards exhibit P3 the sales tax authorities are perfectly justified in finding fault with the appellant for not submitting the returns for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89. But how far the action of the sales tax authorities is justified in proposing to impose a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs for each year is a matter which requires some consideration. It should be remembered that the petitioner was claiming exemption and on that basis he claims he did not pay the tax. This particular fact should be considered while taking action on the basis of exhibit P3. The learned single Judge considered this particular aspect in paragraph 6 of his judgment and clearly pointed out that the proceedings contemplated under exhibit P3 require to be investigated and that the authority concerned should take a decision on the matter keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore [1980] 45 STC 197; AIR 1980 SC 346. We are sure the sales tax authorities will consider this aspect in the light of the explanation submitted by the petitioner - appellant for exhibit P3 notice, in all seriousness. of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore [1980] 45 STC 197; AIR 1980 SC 346. We are sure the sales tax authorities will consider this aspect in the light of the explanation submitted by the petitioner - appellant for exhibit P3 notice, in all seriousness. For the various reasons given above, we hold on point No. 1 that the petitioner is not entitled to avail tax exemption to an extent of 90 per cent of the capital investment in each of the five years. The total exemption which he can avail of in the five years is limited to the 90 per cent of the cumulative capital investment for the entire period of five years. We hold on point No. 3 that exhibit P2 is not liable to be quashed and it is perfectly in accordance with law. We hold that exhibit P3 is also not liable to be quashed as claimed by the petitioner. The sales tax authorities may consider the question of imposing penalty in the light of the explanation that might be submitted by the appellant and in the light of the remarks in this judgment and in the judgment of the learned single Judge in the O.P. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed with costs, advocate's fee fixed at Rs. 1,500. Writ application dismissed.